hedgedoc_create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the ID is random, the title becomes a level-1 heading, and the tool returns note ID and URL. It also mentions anonymous usage limitations. This is solid but does not cover failure modes or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence and a compact bullet list. Every sentence adds value, including the authentication note, with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple create tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers return values and authentication prerequisites. It could be more thorough about instance configuration requirements or error behavior, but overall it is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description compensates by explaining title is added as a level-1 heading and content is the markdown body. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields, though it does not describe formatting constraints or length limits.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool creates a new HedgeDoc note with a random ID, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like hedgedoc_create_with_alias by emphasizing random ID generation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The note about HedgeDoc 1.x not using API tokens and working anonymously provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like hedgedoc_create_with_alias or hedgedoc_create_blank, so guidance remains implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.